Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Atelier Constantin Popescu, LLC v. JC Corp., 134 Conn. App. 731 (2012)

Citation
Atelier Constantin Popescu, LLC v. JC Corp., 134 Conn. App. 731 (2012)
Parent Document
Atelier Constantin Popescu, LLC v. JC Corp., 134 Conn. App. 731 (2012)
Jurisdiction
Connecticut (state)
Effective Date
2012-04-17

Other Sections in This Document (97)

Full Text

904 chars
It is not an appropriate function of this court, when presented with an inadequate record, to speculate as to the reasoning of the trial court or to presume error from a silent record. E.g., McCarthy v. Cadlerock Properties Joint Venture, L.P., 132 Conn. App. 110, 118, 30 A.3d 753 (2011) (“[o]ur role is not to guess at possibilities, but to review claims based on a complete factual record developed by [a] trial court” [internal quotation marks omitted]). “This court does not presume error on the part of the trial court . . . .” State v. Tocco, 120 Conn. App. 768, 781 n.5, 993 A.2d 989, cert. denied, 297 Conn. 917, 996 A.2d 279 (2010). “[T]he trial court’s ruling is entitled to the reasonable presumption that it is correct . . . .” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Koslik, 116 Conn. App. 693, 704-705, 977 A.2d 275, cert. denied, 293 Conn. 930, 980 A.2d 916 (2009).